here present even the passive holding of the disputed domain name should result in a finding of bad faith use by the Respondent The Complainant through counsel sent a detailed cease and desist notice to the Respondent on August 10 2021

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

evidence that Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name since registration and Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale on the Afternic.com platform for USD 1 000 Passively holding a domain name in and of itself does

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

claims that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Lastly the Complainant points out that the Respondent s alleged identity theft referenced in the third party s email is is further proof of bad faith of the Respondent whoever

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Finally the Complainant documents that the Respondent has offered false contact information and asserts that the email servers of the Domain Name has been activated The Respondent has also used a

In these circumstances the passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 Accordingly the

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith on the grounds that the Complainant is well-known and the disputed domain name clearly refers to the Complainant the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant s cease and desist letters

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In determining whether to apply the passive holding doctrine panelists look at i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a

submits that Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case as has been already decided in the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v

that Respondent has been passively holding the Disputed Domain Name because it directs to a functionally blank webpage Complainant cites two cases in support of the proposition that passive holding is in itself incompatible with a claim for

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

with Respondent s otherwise passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings To succeed in its Complaint Complainant must establish in accordance with

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In its determination the Panel considers the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s BVLGARI mark as well as the Respondent s failure to respond in the face of the Complainant s

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Complainant s trademark has a degree of distinctiveness the Domain Name appears to be a misspelling of said trademark and the Respondent has not provided any

website which constitutes passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and

page which constitutes passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

making no active use of it.  Passive holding of an infringing domain name does not confer rights under Policy ¶¶ 4 c i or iii as it does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use  Morgan